Decision ‘08

The Husband Problem

Of all the obstacles facing Hillary Clinton’s heavily favored, but not inevitable, run for the Democratic nomination, perhaps none is more intractible than her husband. Don’t be fooled by the high approval ratings Clinton had when he left office and continues to have even today - those approval ratings are for his stewardship of a mostly peaceful two terms, with a strong economy (and a backlash against his impeachment), and certainly not (a) indicative of a desire to see him in the Oval Office again, or (b) a referendum on his (pretty lousy) record as a husband.

The NY Times has a piece detailing, in an oh-so-proper manner, some of the gossip regarding the Clintons’ somewhat strained marriage:

Mrs. Clinton may be the only Democrat in America who cannot look at Bill Clinton as an unalloyed political asset. He is a complicated figure for his wife, who has grown from a controversial first lady, while intertwined with him, into a popular senator by standing on her own two feet.

“Her national appeal and national strength is not based upon her relationship with Bill Clinton, but her extraordinary stature and success as a U.S. senator,” said Robert Zimmerman, a Democratic donor and supporter of the couple.

Democrats preparing for 2008 describe the political challenge this way: Mrs. Clinton could prosper as a presidential candidate, yet the return of “the Clintons” could revive memories including the oft-derided two-for-the-price-of-one appeal of his 1992 presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s role in the universal health care debacle, and the soap opera of infidelity.

Because of Mr. Clinton’s behavior in the White House, tabloid gossip sticks to him like iron filings to a magnet. Several prominent New York Democrats, in interviews, volunteered that they became concerned last year over a tabloid photograph showing Mr. Clinton leaving B.L.T. Steak in Midtown Manhattan late one night after dining with a group that included Belinda Stronach, a Canadian politician. The two were among roughly a dozen people at a dinner, but it still was enough to fuel coverage in the gossip pages.

Inquiring minds will naturally want to know who Belinda Stronach is; I’ve saved you the trouble of looking. Let’s highlight this bit:

While the Canadian media generally prides itself on much greater reserve and discretion about the private lives of public figures than media of other countries, it paid considerable attention to rumours and innuendos about Stronach’s personal life, particularly her relationship with Bill Clinton.

It’s a real problem - potentially even a fatal one for Clinton’s bid (not Stronach, per se, but the issue of adultery in general). I’d like to think a Clinton candidacy would be considered on its merits, but let’s face it: that’s not the world we live in.

I still find Hillary a formidable candidate, but her baggage may weigh her down just enough to come in second…

13 Responses to “The Husband Problem”

1 mikebdot Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Oh, please tell me you didn’t just write this post…

I will forgive you if you read these two posts by Digby and Atrios, just so you know that I am 100% in agreement with their points, namely, that not only is this a “NY Times…piece”, but it was on the front page, and that why aren’t the sex lives of Newt or Rudy or McCain “fair game” or “important”? WTF? I really want to know why I should give a flying fart about the Clinton’s marital issues. I think you show why this is indeed the world we live in…because people like you (who pride themselves on being fairly reasonable and clever, which, you usually are) keep bringing it up and praising the NY Times for their great reporting. It’s crap reporting. 100% grade A crap. Pretending otherwise makes the National Enquirer look like a reputable publication.
2 Dennis Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:15 pm
But the sex lives of those other politicians clearly are fair game. One of the reasons Newt Gingrich became so unpopular among the general public is the stories that circulated of him asking his cancer-ridden wife for a divorce. Every time Rudy Giuliani’s name comes up in a story about who might get the GOP nomination, his messy divorce is brought up as a reason why he might not get the nod, despite his poll numbers. (I don’t know of any stories about McCain’s marriage, but I doubt that’s because of some conspiracy in the media to hide them.) As Mark said, you might not like it, but that’s the reality. (You’ll notice he did not praise the Times anywhere in that post.)

Myself, I’m on the fence about taking these kinds of things into consideration. If Bill and Hillary have a sham marriage, ultimately it’s their business, although I don’t much care for their pretending otherwise for political purposes, if that’s true. But we don’t just vote for president based on political programs. You have to consider character and judgment, because 1) no matter how much you like their programs, they can’t deliver on all their promises anyway, and 2) the events of history often force presidents to deal with issues no one even considered when they were running.

Now it’s frustrating trying to get a read on a candidate’s character and judgment, given the kaleidoscope images we get of them from their supporters, their detractors and the media. But you have to make do with what you have. I’m a Giuliani supporter, but the fact that he behaved so shabbily in ending his previous marriage gives me pause. In the same way, if Hillary Clinton is staying in her marriage because it’s politically convenient, and trying to present some happy family image that is a total lie, I’ve got to wonder about her a bit (and I say this as someone who could imagine voting for her, based on her senate record).

It’s probably not enough on its own to change my vote in either case, but it’s something that gets added into the overall mix.
3 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
mikedbot, you don’t think that the Clintons’ marital issues, seeing as they resulted in impeachment, for God’s sake, for perjury, are a story?

Wow, and you think I’m kidding myself…
4 Muffin the Cat Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:56 pm
As Mike says, this is typical New York Times 100% bovine scatology. Who paid to have this article put on the front page? Would not be surprised if it were a Democrat. I would not be surprised if was Hilda-*itch herself. The Times is a partisan political paper that needs to die.

Putting that issue aside, I know too many Democrats that will not vote for her who voted for both Kerry and Gore. She has way too much baggage and Bill is part of that baggage. Reality is reality. Don’t ignore it and hope it goes away.

I’m a middle of the road Repub and I hope Giuliani can beat McCain. I like Rudy’s character and personality plus his politics. McCain turns me off. I will happily put my “x” by Rudy’s name but voting for McCain will ~~make me a whore~~ be a chore.
5 Dennis Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 4:05 pm
I should say that one thing I don’t like about the Times piece is the innuendo of current troubles in their marriage, given the complete lack of evidence other than a table of the number of weekends they’ve been apart and some vague references to him heading out to restaurants and parties.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out once the campaigning really gets started. Assuming he’s not caught diddling another intern, I assume most of this will be fare for late-night jokes and not much else. But the thing that strikes me is I can’t see how a former president, especially one with President Clinton’s enormous energy and ego, can play the role of quiet, dutiful spouse. It’ll be nearly impossible for him to say anything without people parsing every detail for evidence that he’s really calling the shots.
6 dmac Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Unfortunately, Hillary has made this topic fair game, mostly by writing a book and devoting about two pages to the Lewinsky affair. When she claimed that she was shocked, shocked to find out what her husband had been doing, and wanted to “wring his neck,” women across the country laughed derisively. Playing everyone for a complete fool is not a good way to get them on your side - if she really thought this was a good way to discuss the issue, then she was badly advised.

Everyone knows that this marriage has been a business partnership primarily for years now - and those of us who are quite tired of the Billary show don’t relish the idea of her husband once again being in the WH. They’ve had their time - enough.
7 too many steves Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Personally, I couldn’t care less about Bill and Hillary’s marital situation, but I think a sizeable portion of the electorate does care.

I could be convinced, based on publicly professed policy positions (alliteration baby!), to vote for Hillary but only so long as I don’t have to listen to her speak. Her voice is fingernails-on-a-chalkboard grating to me and I always feel as if I’m being scolded for something.

Now, is that superficial or what? Sorry, I can’t help it - its true.
8 fatman Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Believe it or not, I actually find myself rather anticipating Billary moving back into the White House (not that I’d ever vote for them myself, you understand). As my grandpappy used to say, “If you can’t have good government, you should at least have government that’s good for a laugh.”
9 peter Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Not superficial at all — hearing George Bush call himself a “decider” is also a fingernail on chalkboard experience –
10 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Into The Hornets’ Nest Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 5:32 pm
[…] 2008 : May 23rd - 6:32pm « The Husband Problem […]
11 Sean P Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 6:15 pm
I’m reminded of a comment I dug up on the pages of the Nation magazine back in 1884 (ie, their pre tin-foil days), when they were endorsing Grover Cleveland for President over James Blaine. Cleveland had a reputation for being an honest and incorruptable politician, but it was soon discovered that he was a horrible womanizer. James Blaine was, by all accounts a dedicated family man but one who (as the Nation put it) “thinks he is an honest man because he didn’t steal everything that wasn’t nailed down.” (I love that line). The paper reasoned that, since Cleveland was honest in his public life but not his personal life voters should vote for him for President and since James Blaine was honest in his personal life but not his public life, voters should “vote” for James Blaine as husband… by voting for Cleveland.

Granted, I don’t think it applies much to the Clintons (whose financial shenanigans were hardly above reproach), but it does apply to many of our politicians. Look at Rudy - he ran a (relatively) clean city government, he fearlessly pursued and brought down much of the New York mafia, and his leadership during 9/11 was unparalleled. His personal life was a mess, but so what? Call me crazy, but I think the fact that he stuck on a hardhat and ran TOWARDS the collapsing buildings to get a read on the situation (at great personal risk to his own life) tells me more about the kind of President he would make than whether he cheated on his wife. Character does count, but digging into someone’s personal life when that same person has a clear public record and reputation for public integrety (or not) seems like a waste of time… not to mention unseemly.
12 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Howie Kurtz Tempts The Swarm Says:
May 24th, 2006 at 8:20 am
[…] Howard Kurtz is due for a drubbing; one thing liberal blogs can’t stand is when the ‘MSM’ questions their collective wisdom, and Kurtz comes down on the opposite side on the Times‘ front-page ‘expose’ of Hillary and Bill: Of course the Clintons’ marriage is news–and the story makes clear that they’ve both thought about how to package it for the public. There is even a joint statement from their two press secretaries, like some SALT-talks communique. […]
13 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Broder: The Elephant In My Column Says:
May 25th, 2006 at 11:51 am
[…] David Broder manages to push out the shelf life of the NY Times‘ ‘expose’ on the Clinton’s marriage by covering its lack of impact at a Clinton appearance. Confused? First, here’s Broder on the column and the appearance: The two sides of Hillary Rodham Clinton — the opposites that make her potential presidential candidacy such a gamble — came into sharp focus Tuesday morning at the National Press Club. […]